The Georgia | 157m | 48 fl | Completed

[vansky]

height does add a lot to that bigger city feel, and it's only 157m, should be looking good with a few 200m, and 150ms...

[officedweller]

Pics by me today:


Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Looks like there will be blue spandrel stripes around the whole tower?
Maybe the ones on the left will be gray (like the office below)

Uploaded with ImageShack.us

Hard to tell what's going on from the render. Note the difference in podium floorplan:

[PROSTSHOCKER]

Originally Posted by officedweller

Hard to tell what's going on from the render. Note the difference in podium floorplan:

Yea, guess they changed it to reflect the probability that no one would want to own an apartment facing the bottom of an alleyway. lol

[officedweller]

I think that would still have been office space (the balconies stop above that level) - but they seem to have made the floorplate bigger.

[trofirhen]

Originally Posted by vansky

height does add a lot to that bigger city feel, and it's only 157m, should be looking good with a few 200m, and 150ms...

The pictures by Delirium give a taste of what downtown will feel more like when The Georgia is finished.
( @Delirium: interesting angles, thanks! )

Regarding height, there's one about to start in Paris, at la Défense, which will be 300m - Europe's tallest; and yes, I'd love to see a couple more 200m and 150m buildings.

It's a shame that back in the 70s, they put up numerous modern, solid, yet "itty bitty" buildings on Howe and Georgia. They're too new to be knocked down for a "supertall" (by Vancouver standards), and they clutter up the view, being rather bland, as well as too small, and not in keeping with the overall scale on their respective streets.

Here's hoping that the Ritz-Carlton (or whatever it is now) will get built, and that perhaps something tall and ultra-sleek will go where the Burrard Building is now.

Nevertheless, the Georgia is a good starting point for CBD size reference, and can only get better once the exterior glass is in place.

[LeftCoaster]

Not that it really matters, but Europe's tallest is already being built in Moscow, the Mercury City tower.

Paris' new building, I assume you are talking about Phare, wont even be tallest in Western Europe, as the Shard current U/C in London will be roughly 10m taller.

[AlexYVR]

Originally Posted by trofirhen

The pictures by Delirium give a taste of what downtown will feel more like when The Georgia is finished.
( @Delirium: interesting angles, thanks! )

It's a shame that back in the 70s, they put up numerous modern, solid, yet "itty bitty" buildings on Howe and Georgia. They're too new to be knocked down for a "supertall" (by Vancouver standards), and they clutter up the view, being rather bland, as well as too small, and not in keeping with the overall scale on their respective streets.

Here's hoping that the Ritz-Carlton (or whatever it is now) will get built, and that perhaps something tall and ultra-sleek will go where the Burrard Building is now.

I am still at a loss as to why people would rather have a potemkin village of fake tall skyscrapers that the Vancouver market just can't support than have a series of workable, fillable structures that cater to need. Vancouver isn't a New York, it's not a 'build it and they'll come' city. We need to entice them and they'll build (Telus). Would I love to have Tower Verre plopped down in the middle of Vancouver? Yes. Is it going to happen? Not until we have a few million more people, and especially not now that Gordo's gone.

Burrard building is beautiful. I'm glad they clarified that they'd only be building something on that site once it had lived out its useful lifespan.

[LeftCoaster]

Originally Posted by AlexYVR

Burrard building is beautiful. I'm glad they clarified that they'd only be building something on that site once it had lived out its useful lifespan.

Sorry did i miss something? When did this get announced and under what context?

[jlousa]

A city planner stated that their is no plan on the table to redevelop the Burrard Building and that they expect it to live out it's useful life and that maybe things could be different 20yrs from now. Of course the property owner might have other ideas.

[city-dweller]

Its appears there is and always has been an argument for taller buildings on this forum. (skyscraperpage...no kidding!) Those who want taller buildings either want the restrictions relaxed a bit or no limit. If we did go this route, I would suggest stronger proposals above and beyond a taller version of a standard proposal. However, the impact of "going higher" should be considered not only as game-changer for urban form, but also a shift in city-experience in the long-term. Once you start exemptions for height you create an incremental trend up. This is already happening. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but depends on your long-term goals.

Is building higher the best way to meet local demand for residential/office space more cost-effectively, or would we building landmarks, or both? Essentially, in a city with already distinct buildings and landmarks, why should we sacrfice a distinct urban form? If you want the experience and view of tall buildings visit the cities that have defined their downtowns as such. I don't have an issue with changing our existing policy, if it is part of long-term plan that considers the implications and impacts of increased height. But, I do have an issue of "going-tall" for the reason of joining the club of high buildings or personal preference.

[golog]

I'm in favour of building what can profitably be filled, and progressing one step at a time.

However, the ranked distribution of buildings (in terms of floor space, size, or other category) probably follows a steady profile. That is to say for every tallest building, there are a multiple a bit shorter, and then another slightly shorter successive multiple for each of those, and so on. So I can see why there is a lot of attention to the high end of any category.

We've just had a condo boom, and seen a wave makeover the city. It also means that we'll have some slow years as the new space is digested. Now it appears that offices are a competitive proposition for developers and that too may proceed as a boom-bust. So while the market is booming, I as an observer feel the pressure. You want to see that new #1 in a category achieved while the sun is shining, then when the next wave comes the stage is set to as quickly as possible fill in the ranks and re-establish the relative distribution.

You can't build 1 million sq ft of AAA CRE without 10 million sq ft of AA CRE to support it, and vice versa (made up numbers, for the sake of argument). It's easier to follow, and hope for the the new #1 to come in this wave than anything else

[officedweller]

I think that the main reason for going tall in Vancouver (or at least reserving space for when their is demand to do so) is because there are no alternate nodes within the City of Vancouver that will be allowed to go tall (not on a Paris vs La Defense or a City vs Docklands sense) - although Surrey could do so. I can't see the Broadway Corridor going tall because of the proximity to lower scale residential.

[Locked In]

Are the beige panels being installed today a pre-cast facade? It's too gloomy today to see properly or get a good photo - my BB photo, today:


Full Size

[itinerant]

They're not the facade panels. They appear to be another layer of insulation. This layer seems to be very lightweight from the way the workmen are easily cutting, lifting and pushing them into place--fitting the pieces between the horizantal mounting bars that were put up last week.

[officedweller]

Hard to tell from my vantage point too - but I think it's insulation because it's not the same colour as the precast on the courtyard side of the building.

[Locked In]

Ok, good to hear - the colour of the panels worried me a little...

[Phil McAvity]

Originally Posted by Locked In

Full Size

You've either got some serious digital zoom going on in this picture or a really old phone.

[officedweller]

My pocket camera does that too - I think it has something to do with shooting through [dirty] tinted glass, low light levels and the camera selecting a high (grainy) ASA (since pics not shot through glass look good).

[Locked In]

^ It's a Bold 9700. I have the same results as OD - shooting with digi-zoom and low light through tinted glass, the photos come out awful. Didn't have my Canon around yesterday.
Anyways, the beige insulation looks to be finished on Howe Street - maybe we'll see the actual facade sometime soon.

[Locked In]

My photos from yesterday and today:


Full Size


Full Size